Congress finds Big Oil holding back fields that could DOUBLE US output

Rush Limbaugh and other right wing commentators have blamed high oil prices on limits on off-shore drilling near the US and in ANWR, but what makes people think big oil will pump more if we give them more oil fields?

Right now, they hold leases to federal land that they AREN'T DRILLING ON that could DOUBLE US oil output according to the House Committee on Natural Resources. They have introduced a bill to make them use those fields or lose them:

KEY EXCERPTS:


Washington, D.C. - In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) today introduced legislation that gives Big Oil one option - either "use it or lose it."

The 68 million acres of leased but inactive federal land have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75 percent. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than one-third, reducing America's dependency on foreign oil.

The Rahall bill would force oil and gas companies to either produce or give up federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling by barring the companies from obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas, or are diligently developing the leases they already hold, during the initial term of the leases.

Coal companies... are required... to show that they are diligently developing their leases during the initial lease term. The law was enacted in an effort to end rampant speculation on federal coal as a result of the energy crises of the 1970's.

Oil and gas companies, however, are not required to demonstrate diligent development. Because of this, oil and gas companies have been allowed to stockpile leases in a non-producing status, while leaving millions of acres of leased land untouched. The Rahall legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to define what constitutes diligent development for oil and gas leases.

FULL TEXT

They are holding those fields back to control the price and keep it high, just as they aren't shedding too many tears over the violence in Iraq or war talk about Iran since that drives up the price of oil too.

In fact, before the Iraq War, OIL & GAS JOURNAL fretted that when the sanctions came off, Saddam would pump too much oil and drive down prices--unless there was a war. We gave them the war, and they rewarded our sacrifice of tax dollars and soldiers lives by gouging us at the pump.

If they didn't charge us less for giving them Iraq, why would they for ANWR?

Tell your congressman and senators to support the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 (H.R. 6251).

on Oil motive for Iraq War, are Dems in DC silent from cowardice, corruption, or cognitive impairment?

Greg Palast wrote a column about the 80 years of choking Iraq's oil output to keep prices high that that about two minutes of googling could verify. It is another brick in the pyramid of evidence that the Iraq War and impending Iran War are about keeping oil prices high rather than bringing them down. That's because the war is meant to benefit the oil companies, not the average American and certainly not the average Iraqi (who is dead).

Oil & Gas Journal said as much in 2002 when they worried that without a war against Iraq, Saddam would pump too much and drive prices down. A top oil exec admitted as much to Palast, and Bush sent assurances to Putin that a successful Iraq War would NOT result in lower gas prices.

And Bush is forcing such an exploitative oil law to ensure most of the profits go to big oil on Iraqis that the parliament won't pass it even as oil companies are offering members of parliament bribes into the millions.

You would think the Democrats would be shouting this from the roof tops and the Republicans would be scurrying like cockroaches back into their lobbying firms and corporate boardrooms. Instead, Democrats talk about the Iraq War in terms of the failure to fight the "War on Terror" or worse, how poorly Bush has executed the war (if only we had screwed the Iraqis more subtly). That message is muddled at best and only attractive when compared to the Republican sprint-to-Armageddon foreign policy.

I sent the following email to Palast to ask him what the hell was going with the supposed opposition party in DC:

Greg,

In your column on redlining Iraq's oil production, you said Obama or at least his advisors should know about that bit of history, and that is probably true, but you would never know it from any of their published articles, interviews, or public statements.

Only a handful in the House of Representatives have talked honestly about the oil motive for the Iraq War or the Hydrocarbon Law machinations that are still going on. As far as I know, NO ONE in the senate has dealt honestly with this issue. (A few like Biden, Reid, and Feinstein have taken the time to lie though).

Is this because they are on or hope to be on the oil company dole? Are they afraid of being crushed by big oil if the cross them? Or are they just plain retarded?

My fear is that if the Democrats are not talking honestly about this, it means they plan to continue the same policies as Bush only with less bombastic propaganda.

The British parliament at least had a resolution that 100 MPs signed condemning their government coercing Iraqis on behalf of big oil.

Is our government so much more corrupt than theirs?

Sincerely,

If he responds, I'll post that here. (and he has written me back before).

Here's excerpts of his article on redlining Iraq:

Obama’s Secret War Profiteering Tax
By Greg Palast for TomPaine.com/OurFuture.org
New York, May 22, 2008.

In 1928, oil company chieftains (from Anglo-Persian Oil, now British Petroleum, from Standard Oil, now Exxon, and their Continental counterparts) were faced with a crisis: falling prices due to rising supplies of oil; the same crisis faced by their successors during the Clinton years, when oil traded at $22 a barrel.

The solution then, as now: stop the flow of oil, squeeze the market, raise the price. The method: put a red line around Iraq and declare that virtually all the oil under its sands would remain there, untapped. Their plan: choke supply, raise prices rise, boost profits. That was the program for 1928. For 2003. For 2008.

Again and again, year after year, the world price of oil has been boosted artificially by keeping a tight limit on Iraq’s oil output. Methods varied. The 1928 “Redline” agreement held, in various forms, for over three decades. It was replaced in 1959 by quotas imposed by President Eisenhower. Then Saudi Arabia and OPEC kept Iraq, capable of producing over 6 million barrels a day, capped at half that, given an export quota equal to Iran’s lower output.

***

It’s been a good war for Exxon and friends. Since George Bush began to beat the war-drum for an invasion of Iraq, the value of Exxon’s reserves has risen – are you ready for this? – by $2 trillion.

Obama’s war profiteering tax, or “oil windfall profits” tax, would equal just 20% of the industry’s charges in excess of $80 a barrel. It’s embarrassingly small actually, smaller than every windfall tax charged by every other nation. (Ecuador, for example, captures up to 99% of the higher earnings).

FULL TEXT

OIL THEFT MOTIVE FOR IRAQ WAR RESOURCES

Iraqi scholars & pols say REJECT hydrocarbon law

The guy at Hands off Iraqi oil makes it a lot easier for me to find this stuff.

Scholars, politicians, and oil technocrats got together at a conference and were pretty unified in their opposition to the Hydrocarbon Law the Bushies shoved down the Iraqis throats. Some snippets of their comments are the excerpts below.

For some reason, this isn't in the American news feeds, even though its from Dow Jones Newswires.

As always the question is, if there is even the perception that we might be screwing the Iraqis out of their oil wealth, how real is this "War on Terror" since this will only incite more hatred of the United States?

KEY EXCERPTS:

Some Iraqi Politicians Urge Rejection Of Draft Oil Law

Released : Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:07 AM

Mar 10, 2007 (Dow Jones Commodities News Select via Comtex) --By Hassan Hafidh

Of Dow Jones Newswires

"This critical draft law would revive foreign companies' control on Iraqi oil wealth that Iraq had gotten rid of years ago," Faidhi said.

The nationalization of the oil industry in the early 1970s under Saddam Hussein was a hugely popular move, and many Iraqis worry about foreigners exploiting their fields.

Saleh al-Mutlak, head of the National Dialogue, a Sunni party represented in the Iraqi parliament, echoed Faidhi's remarks.

"Iraqis are suspicious that if the law is passed at this critical time that Iraq is passing through, they would think it would be passed in order to serve the interest of foreign companies," he said.

"This law would also further divide the Iraqi people because most of them would oppose it," Mutlak told Dow Jones Newswires on the sideline of the conference which was attended by parliamentarians representing three blocs at the Iraqi parliament.

Issam al-Chalabi, former Iraqi oil minister during the government of Saddam Hussein, and a veteran Iraqi oil expert, criticized the draft oil law, saying prominent Iraqi oil experts weren't allowed to take part in discussions of the legislation and that it wasn't published in the media in order that the Iraqi people could see it.

"We are with issuing a hydrocarbon law that would regulate Iraq's oil industry, but enough time should be given to draft the law before submitting it to the parliament for approval," he said.

FULL TEXT:
http://www.macroworld.net/m/m.w?lp=GetStory&id=245184201

MORE ON IRAQI REACTION TO OIL LAW

What Iraqi oil workers think of the deal

More Iraqi reaction

OIL MOTIVE for Iraq War resources
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraq-oil-war-resources.html



iraq war privatization jim mcdermott oil psa production sharing agreement president george w bush oil companies shell bpExxonMobil ChevronTexaco ConocoPhillips republican antonia juhasz greg palast GOP conservative corruption occupation colonialism hydrocarbon law grover norquist jay garner professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation democracy war on terror public relations worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news

OIL TOO CHEAP if no Iraq War says Oil & Gas Journal in 2002

The BBC's Greg Palast ran a story a year ago about a former top CIA oil analyst, who he names, telling him the Iraq War was in part to keep Iraq from producing too much oil and driving the price down.

Later, the Downing Street Minutes of Bush & Blair's planning for the war seemed to confirm this when Bush sent assurances to Russia's Vladimir Putin that a successful invasion would NOT result in lower oil prices.

PALAST & DSM STORIES

I stumbled across further confirmation in Oil & Gas Journal, the primary publication of the oil industry, while looking for something else. They seem very concerned that without the war, which would begin in four months, the price of oil per barrel would drop.

Unmentioned is that this would mean lower prices for us at the pump. So in effect, we went to war for the right to pay more for gas.

How long do you think we'd have to wait for the war to end and Bush and Cheney to be impeached if the Democrats investigated this and said it everyday?

If they are serious about getting these bastards out of the driver's seat, this is what it will take.

Most people call it honesty.

Democrats should try it instead of just telling nicer lies than the Republicans.

KEY EXCERPTS:




Market hotline: OPEC faces bigger challenge without Iraq war
Bob Williams. Oil & Gas Journal.
Dec 2, 2002

OPEC price threat

Absent a war, says CGES [Centre for Global Energy Studies], the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will need to make substantial output cuts to keep oil prices from falling below the floor of its $22-28/bbl official target price range (for a basket of OPEC crudes).

Noting that the price of oil had fallen by $6/bbl from mid-October to mid-November, the London-based think tank said that the OPEC 10 (excluding Iraq) had opted for boosting production in October. With Iraq doubling oil exports to 1.7 million b/d in October, that hiked total OPEC output by 1 million b/d that month. "Unless Iraq's oil exports collapse again, the rest of OPEC needs to begin curtailing overproduction to prevent further falls in the price in the coming months," CGES said.

***

This could be achieved without changing quotas, for OPEC 10 production would need to fall to 22.6 million b/d, still almost 1 million b/d over the current 21.7 million bid group quota. Without such restraint, oil prices would start to drift down towards the lower end of the OPEC price band by yearend, says CGES. Failure to act immediately, the think tank warns, would then require a cut of 1.5 million bld in second quarter 2003 just to keep Brent crude at $18.50-20.50/bbl next year.

"OPEC cannot afford to wait for a disruption to Iraq's oil exports to bring the oil market back into balance," CGES said. "The threat of war will linger until Iraq is given a clean bill of health by the UN's weapons inspectors.

"In the meantime, there is too much oil in the market for OPEC to achieve its price target unless, in an uncharacteristic burst of altruism, OPEC accepts that the global economy needs cheaper oil."

LINK TO FULL TEXT ARTICLE
(requires subscription. If you find a free link to this, let me know).

OIL MOTIVE for Iraq War resources
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraq-oil-war-resources.html



iraq war privatization jim mcdermott oil psa production sharing agreement president george w bush oil companies shell bpExxonMobil ChevronTexaco ConocoPhillips republican antonia juhasz greg palast GOP conservative corruption occupation colonialism hydrocarbon law grover norquist jay garner professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation democracy war on terror public relations worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news